Transcript Outcome Measurement Across Community Services

Outcome Measurement Across
Community Services
Experiences from Other Jurisdictions
and the ACT Current Context
Admir Meko – ACTCOSS
December 2013
Purpose of Presentation
• What is the current discourse on Outcome
Measurement in Community Services in
Australia?
• Present relevant experiences from different
Jurisdictions.
• Discuss and reflect on what approaches can
be incorporated in the sector.
Focus of this Presentation
1. Effects of Sector Reform initiatives in measuring
impact;
2. Government Initiated and/or Supported
Initiatives in measuring outcomes;
2. Cross-Sector and Sub-sector Initiatives;
3. Shared (and not) Outcome Measurement;
• Any tool is used by more than one Org;
• Aiming to measure Impact;
• Build information collectively about what works.
Session is aimed to be both informative and
consultative.
Limitations of Presentation
• Our research is not finalised;
• Difficult to include every single activity;
• Many sporadic initiatives and more broader
processes are under way;
• Lack of Evaluation and Assessment of current
initiatives to date;
• Difficult to predict sudden shifts in policies and
procedures.
• Somehow limited time for presenting.
What has Driven the Discourse for
Outcome Measurement in Social
Services?
At the Organisational Level:
• The Demand from Funders including Gov;
• The need from within Organisations;
• A shift from focusing only on Inputs/Outputs;
• Limitations and/or Inability to Report on the
Broader and Long-term Impact.
At the National and State/Territory
Level
• Sector Reform Activities in the last 5 Years;
• Recommendations from Productivity
Commission Report – The Contribution of Notfor-Profit Sector;
• Continuous Changes in Procurement, Funding
& Reporting Mechanisms;
• A Vision and Demand for more Collaboration
in Service Delivery of Government/s Funded
Programs.
What is Happening at the National
Level?
Productivity Commission Report (2010) highlighted:
• Growing calls from sector for accountability and
demonstration of impact;
• Purchasing arrangements put pressure on Gov-NFP
sector relations;
• The need for a unified framework for clearer
governance and accountability;
• Improve arrangements for an effective sector
development; and more importantly
Recommended - A nationally agreed measurement and
evaluation framework - a greater understanding of the
outcomes and impacts of the sector and underpin
enhanced evaluation within the sector.
Coalition Government – Pre-election
• Each agency funded by Commonwealth Gov –
one single contract;
• Flexible contract negotiation - ???
• Decrease reporting on a single annual one;
• Important: Replacement of time-consuming
and costly system/s of data collection with:
A Number of Cross-Sector Evaluation Programs
No detailed info on this so far
Factors for a Successful Shared Outcome
Approach (Eibhlin et al, 2013)
Evidence Gap
Bottom-up
Approach
Initial
Funding
Diversity of
Stakeholders
Committed
Group
Independent
Leader
Robust
Methods
Meaningful
Outcomes
Ease of use
Flexible
Outcomes
Use of
Technology;
Ongoing Tool
Refinement;
Financial
Sustainability
Defining Shared Measurement
(Foundation Strategy Group, 2009)
Understandi
ng your
sector
Developing
Shared
Outcomes
Using
Common
Tools
Think about
similarities of
intervention
Shared values,
mission and
goal are
important
here.
Good
Collaboration
Consider your
impact
network.
Use a Theory of
Change
approach to
clarify
outcomes
There are many
common tools
that can used.
Agree on
standard scales
to be used for
measuring.
Using
Common
Methods
and
Evaluation
Frameworks
This includes
similar
samples and
research
designs, data
analysis
process –
percentages,
statistical
testing, etc
Share and
Compare
Results
Aggregating
data should
lead to a better
understanding
of impact.
Online
platforms are
important for
this processes
Victoria
Sector Reform (Shergold 2013) – Three main pillars
• Improving System Funding
• Improving System Operation
• Improving Outcomes
Recommendation: Development of an outcomes framework through a
partnership between the government and community service organisations.
It should:
• establish metrics against which the delivery of beneficial social impact will
be audited, monitored, measured and reported over time.
• Individual government departments should clearly articulate the
outcomes sought from government investment in the services they fund;
• Wherever possible, link funding to the achievement of those outcomes;
• Policy development and program design should be based on the
collection of data, research, analysis and evaluation of outcome
performance.
Victoria – Current Context
• Community Sector Reform Council (CSRC);
• Some orgs are already applying outcome
measurement tools;
• No sector-wide models;
• Some innovation in outcome focused funding:
1. Services Connect
2. Victorian Homelessness Action Plan – Innovation
Action Projects
3. Victoria’s Vulnerable Children’s Strategy
4. Youth Partnerships
New South Wales
During 2010-2011 - Realignment of Community Services Grant
Program:
Community Builders
Program
Early Intervention and
Placement Prevention
Program (EIPP)
Community Hubs
Community Capacity Building
Community Skills Development
Community Sector
Development
Child and Family Support
Youth and Family Support
Intensive Family Support
Intensive Family Preservation
Evaluation
Community Builders – 570 services
EIPP – 177 Services (down from 430)
Report on Outputs and
Outcomes;
Report on Outputs and
Outcomes;
It is called the ‘RBA Framework’
Program (Result) Logics and
Performance Measures for each
sub-category and an overarching
one for the whole program –
Independent Consultancy.
Data collected through an online Data collected through CYFS
tool – data sent to an
Data Collection Online Tool –
outsourced service.
includes a Summary Tool.
EIPP RBA Project - Program Logic and
Evaluation Pathways
EIPP Program Logic Diagram
EIPP Child and
Family Support
Results Logic
Diagram
EIPP Child and
Family Support
Performance
Measures
EIPP Youth and
Family Support
Results Logic
Diagram
EIPP Youth and
Family Support
Performance
Measures
EIPP Intensive
Family Support
Results Logic
diagram
EIPP Intensive
Family
Preservation
Results Logic
diagram
EIPP Intensive
Family Support
Performance
Measures
EIPP Intensive
Family
Preservation
Performance
Measures
Additional Processes (all services)
• Performance Monitoring Framework
Five standardised activities:
• self assessment – capacity and capability for
data collection and reporting;
• desktop review;
• monitoring & review meeting (if required)
• performance improvement planning (if required);
• the decision to continue funding a service.
Queensland
• Human Service Quality Framework (December
2012) – less red tape, common standards across
services. Six Standards replace previous Service
Standards for Disability Service & Advocacy,
Community and Children Services.
• Common Service Agreement (from July 2010) - A
consistent model for funding similar services.
• Output Funding and Reporting (2012-2015) –
moving from input to output based. Supported by
the Outputs Catalogue and OASIS online
reporting tool.
OASIS (Online Acquittal Support
Information System)
Western Australia
• Partnership Forum (2010) – a medium for Gov
and NFP to discuss and solve issues.
• Delivering Community Services in Partnership
Policy (2011).
• More focus on outcomes (qualitative),
especially from NFP though no shared
measurement.
• Services still in the process of understanding
the changes in the policy.
South Australia
No explicit top-down approach identified yet.
Though one generated by NFP – ‘Together SA’
• In 2009 Community Centres SA ran an RBA model for
planning, implementing, evaluation, etc.
• Interest from Dep. of Comm. and Soc. Inclusion.
• Transformed into a Collective Impact model.
• Results – RBA Comm. of Practice; An Alliance between
agencies – move beyond individual agendas through
coordination, many training activities;
• It will interesting to follow up especially the Gov
involvement and potential further expansion.
Tasmania
• Quality and Safety Standards Framework;
• Standard and Performance Pathways (SPP) –
online portal by TasCOSS.
• Strategic Policy Team within Community
Services Relationship Units (similar to Fed. and
Victoria) – a single point of contact for all
issues.
• Joint Project ‘Working Together to Make
Difference’ – started November 2013.
Joint Project ‘Working Together to
Make Difference’
3 Year Capacity Building Strategy aiming to:
• Embed outcomes measurement;
• Build Knowledge, Skills and Networks;
• Develop shared language and understanding;
• Develop outcomes for specific service areas;
• Initiate a ‘Collective Impact’ strategy;
• Be able to measure progress in outcomes.
Two Streams of Activities
Stream 1
• Resources and Evidence Building;
• Training and Seminars;
• Networks and Peer Learning.
Stream 2
• Raise Awareness of ‘Collective Impact’
• Develop Strategic Intent amongst orgs;
• Develop a Coordinated Plan for intended
outcomes;
• Develop and Disseminate Knowledge.
Australian Capital Territory
Development of Purchasing Framework (2010 –
to date)
Important notes:
Information taken from CSD website;
Anecdotal evidence suggest final product may
change;
The development of the Blueprint for Human
Services may bring further recommendations.
The Reasoning for the Framework
Intends to address the following:
• A short to medium term approach to service
development;
• A maximum three year funding cycle;
• Funding is not linked to population outcomes;
• There are different funding approaches across ACT
human service agencies;
• Outputs are the focus of transactional contracting;
• There is no common prequalification framework for
human services; and
• A limited outcome based quality reporting.
Objectives
All funded services will be required and expected to have:
• A prequalification Framework;
• A maximum 10 year Service Funding Agreement
consisting of a fixed term with option periods and
agreed performance milestones (this may decrease to
five;
• An Outcomes Based Quality Framework;
• Standard common terms and conditions in their
Service Funding Agreements; and
• Work within a common performance reporting
framework.
Mid-long Term Results
• Increase the capacity to measure the
achievement of specific population results over a
10 year period with the potential to measure
intra-generational outcomes over a longer
period;
• Provide common reporting systems – across all
ACT Government funded human services;
• Offer incentives for ACT government funded
human services as they improve the quality of
service delivery
• Improve the efficiency, reduce duplication and
costs for all service providers
Main Pillars
• Prequalification Framework - quality assurance,
capability, eligibility of provision;
• Reporting Framework – Outcomes, Indicators and
Outputs to measure the progress;
• External Audits – To measure Efficiency and
Effectiveness
• Sector Management – Sector Development, Contract
Management, Quality and Improvement;
• Quality Improvement Framework – procurement tools,
Centralised Contract and Grants Processing, Tendering
process and Standard Terms and Conditions for all
services.
What We Know
• Difficult to determine what it would look like.
• CYFSP has its own Output & Outcome Reporting
Framework.
• Housing & Homelessness is developing its own through
Joint Pathways Group.
While
• Individual agencies are collecting data and measuring
outcomes for their own purpose – RBA, SROI, Outcome
Star, etc.
• Need for more knowledge and understanding from
both gov & NFP.
• Without Government support cross-sector outcome
measurement difficult.
Main Issues
• How to incorporate different sectors in one
Outcomes Reporting Framework? Is it do-able?
• One Reporting Tool Vs Orgs choose their own.
• Are top-down approaches more effective? Some
of the best initiatives are bottom-up models.
• Who should be responsible for data analysis –
gov, each agency or an independent body and
how are they used to drive change?
Questions, Comments and Discussion